Markus Koehnen

The plaintiff claimed a commission of $8,080,000 from the defendants, alleging it introduced them to a mining company and provided confidential information pursuant to a confidentiality agreement.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the defendants and the mining company had already introduced themselves before the plaintiff's involvement, and the plaintiff only provided publicly available information.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, the action was dismissed against the moving defendants, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant, Pyxis Real Estate Equities Inc., sought an order to rectify corporate documents to correct a mistake made by its accountants.

The mistake resulted in an unintended tax consequence related to a series of inter-corporate capital dividends, which were intended to provide a tax-free dividend of $1,400,000 to a shareholder.

The respondent, Attorney General of Canada, argued that rectification was inappropriate as the facts did not meet the legal requirements and that it constituted retroactive tax planning.

The court granted the application, finding that the true intention of the transaction was to achieve a tax-free dividend, and the documents failed to reflect this due to a transcription error, not a flaw in the tax structure itself.

The court emphasized viewing the transaction holistically to give it business efficacy.

The applicants, animal rights activists, challenged the constitutionality of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and its Regulation.

They argued that provisions voiding consent to enter agricultural premises if obtained under false pretences, and provisions prohibiting interaction with farm animals, violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

The court found that the Act's prohibition on interacting with animals did not violate the Charter, as there is no constitutional right to physically interact with another's private property.

However, the court held that Section 9 of the Regulation, which penalized any false statement made to gain access to agricultural premises, unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression.

The court struck down Section 9 and certain limitations within the whistleblower and journalist exemptions, while upholding the rest of the Act.

The defendant, G.E.S. Construction Limited, brought a motion seeking a declaration that the third-party defendant, Lloyd’s Underwriters, had a duty to defend and indemnify G.E.S. in the action.

G.E.S. argued that Lloyd's attempt to void the insurance policy was ineffective due to waiver or estoppel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Lloyd's conduct did not demonstrate an unequivocal and conscious intention to waive its right to void the policy, nor was there evidence of detrimental reliance by the insured to establish estoppel.

The defendants, Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Trillium Supply Chain Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no cause of action and being frivolous/vexatious.

The plaintiff, 1923968 Ontario Ltd. o/a as Phyxiat Courier, opposed the motion.

The court largely dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the claim pleaded sufficient facts to establish proximity and a duty of care for negligence, and disclosed a germ of a claim for conspiracy and intentional interference with contractual relations.

However, the court struck certain paragraphs related to allegations against the Ontario government and overly broad negligence claims, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This motion arose from a contentious landlord-tenant relationship, addressing the proper calculation of realty taxes and occupancy expenses, and costs, following a prior application.

The court found the Landlord improperly used inconsistent methods to calculate the Tenant's realty tax allocation.

While declining to rule on occupancy expenses in this motion, the court remained seized of the issue.

Critically, the Landlord was ordered to pay the Tenant substantial indemnity costs for both the original application and this motion, totaling $709,017.39, due to the Landlord's "reprehensible" conduct, including attempting to evict the tenant for an ulterior motive (a better offer from another party) and engaging in vexatious litigation tactics.

The plaintiff, Ellen De Castro, brought a motion for summary judgment in an employment matter against Arista Homes Limited.

The defendant opposed, arguing that cross-examinations were not permitted in simplified procedures, the employment contract limited notice to statutory severance, and the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court rejected all defendant's arguments, finding that cross-examinations were permitted by court order, the termination provisions in the contract were unenforceable as they provided less than the statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act, and the defendant failed to prove inadequate mitigation, especially given the plaintiff's personal circumstances (daughter's cancer and death) and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court awarded the plaintiff 8 months' salary in lieu of notice, plus 10% for lost benefits and a prorated bonus, totaling $57,620.85.

Echelon General Insurance Company brought two motions: one to strike paragraphs from the plaintiffs' solicitor's affidavit for lack of personal knowledge/source, and another to stay the action due to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to disclose a Pierringer agreement from a separate construction action.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the affidavit information uncontested background facts.

The court also dismissed the motion to stay, ruling that the "Aecon principles" of disclosure of settlement agreements do not extend to settlements in entirely separate proceedings where the non-settling party (Echelon) was not a party and had opportunities to protect its interests (e.g., by joining third parties or pursuing subrogated claims) but failed to do so.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicants, Jacqueline Anne Horvat (Treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario) and the Law Society of Ontario, sought to transfer a libel action initiated by the respondent, Samuel David Goldstein, from Small Claims Court to the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent's claim alleged libel by the Treasurer in a public statement.

The court granted the transfer, finding the case involved complex legal issues, required pre-trial discovery, and raised matters of general public importance concerning the LSO's governance and the conduct of its Benchers.

To mitigate the respondent's concerns about increased costs and potential anti-SLAPP motions, the court imposed conditions: no anti-SLAPP motion could be brought, the applicants' costs would be limited to Small Claims Court levels if successful, but the respondent's costs would not be so limited if he were successful.

The court also offered to remain seized for case management.

The plaintiff flooring contractor sued the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices relating to the installation of a concrete urethane floor in a brewery.

The general contractor counterclaimed and brought separate actions against the flooring subcontractors and the product manufacturer, alleging the floor was negligently installed and defective.

The court found that the alleged defects were cosmetic and resulted from the general contractor's decision to substitute a cheaper flooring product without the designer's approval, as well as poor maintenance by the brewery.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for unpaid invoices and dismissed the general contractor's counterclaim and third-party actions.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich order against its former property manager and associated individuals and corporations.

The plaintiff discovered that the defendants had depleted its reserve account by over $900,000 through forged cheques and counterfeit bank statements.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation, granting the Mareva injunction.

The court also granted a Norwich order to compel disclosure from the banks involved to trace the misappropriated funds.

The applicant sought to appoint an independent accountant to resolve a dispute over a working capital calculation under a share purchase agreement.

The respondents argued the request was out of time and that substantive relief could not be granted at a case conference without a full evidentiary record.

The court granted the application, holding that the respondents had implicitly agreed to extend the timeline and that granting substantive relief at a case conference was a proportionate procedure given the severe delays in the civil justice system.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the City of Toronto from clearing a homeless encampment, arguing the bylaw authorizing the clearance breached section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions.

While a serious issue was found, the court determined that the irreparable harm was minimal given the City's offer of hotel shelter accommodation to encampment residents.

The balance of convenience heavily favored the City due to significant fire risks at the encampment and the availability of safer alternative housing.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The defendant Bank of Nova Scotia and third party Julie Leblanc brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and third party claim for disclosing no cause of action, being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rules 21.01(b), 21.01(3)(b), and 25.11.

The court granted the motion, finding the claim to be a collateral attack on an earlier court order regarding the limitations period and time-barred independently.

The plaintiff's claims, including those related to the bank's alleged failure to revoke a power of attorney, investigate fraud, or breach fiduciary duties, were found to be based on events discovered more than two years before the action was commenced.

The court struck the claims without leave to amend and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Bank of Nova Scotia.

The defendants sought costs following a successful summary judgment motion that dismissed the plaintiff's action based on a prior settlement and release.

The release stipulated that any party breaching it would be liable for costs on a 'solicitor and his own client scale.' The court held that this phrase is synonymous with full indemnity costs, distinguishing prior case law that equated it with substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, fixing them at $70,235.52 for one defendant and $110,000 for the other two defendants, reducing the latter's claim due to overstaffing.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant terminated his fixed-term contract without notice.

The court found that the termination clause did not clearly allow for termination without notice, and any ambiguity was resolved against the defendant who drafted the contract.

The plaintiff was entitled to damages for the remainder of the one-year term.

The court awarded damages of $21,034.01, accounting for the plaintiff's mitigation of damages by finding new employment and a decline in the real estate market.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found the appellant incapable of making treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic medications and a Community Treatment Plan.

The appellant challenged the Board's findings on three grounds: error in appreciating foreseeable consequences of treatment decisions, misapprehension of evidence, and error in finding likelihood of substantial mental deterioration without treatment.

The court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant's inability to recognize the severe psychotic symptoms of her condition prevented her from appreciating the consequences of treatment or lack thereof.

The court also found no misapprehension of evidence and confirmed the Board's assessment of the likelihood of deterioration based on the Mental Health Act criteria, dismissing the appeal on all grounds.

The plaintiff initiated a claim against the defendants arising from a joint venture to construct and sell a house, where costs and profits were to be shared equally.

The defendants were noted in default after failing to file a defence and comply with a peremptory court order to pay costs and deliver a defence.

The defendants cited financial hardship due to an earthquake in Turkey as an excuse for non-compliance.

The court proceeded with a default trial, emphasizing the paramount importance of obeying court orders and rejecting the defendants' excuse.

Based on the deemed admissions from the statement of claim, the court found the defendants liable for various financial contributions and debts related to the joint venture and a guaranteed mortgage.

The applicant, Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), challenged a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit and its preliminary recommendation to suspend MAC's charitable status, alleging Charter violations based on discriminatory information and Islamophobia.

The court dismissed the application on grounds of prematurity, holding that judicial intervention was inappropriate before the completion of the administrative process, which included internal appeals and further rights of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada or Federal Court of Appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to declare three judgment debtors as vexatious litigants and to prohibit them from bringing further motions without leave, or alternatively, to require them to post security for costs.

The motion was prompted by the judgment debtors' attempt to set aside a 2014 trial judgment based on allegedly new evidence.

The court found that two of the judgment debtors had a history of abusive litigation conduct, including re-litigating decided issues and failing to pay costs awards.

The court declared those two debtors vexatious litigants and ordered all three to post security for costs before pursuing any further motions to set aside the judgment.